↓ Skip to main content

Improving the process of research ethics review

Overview of attention for article published in Research Integrity and Peer Review, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
28 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Improving the process of research ethics review
Published in
Research Integrity and Peer Review, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41073-017-0038-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stacey A. Page, Jeffrey Nyeboer

Abstract

Research Ethics Boards, or Institutional Review Boards, protect the safety and welfare of human research participants. These bodies are responsible for providing an independent evaluation of proposed research studies, ultimately ensuring that the research does not proceed unless standards and regulations are met. Concurrent with the growing volume of human participant research, the workload and responsibilities of Research Ethics Boards (REBs) have continued to increase. Dissatisfaction with the review process, particularly the time interval from submission to decision, is common within the research community, but there has been little systematic effort to examine REB processes that may contribute to inefficiencies. We offer a model illustrating REB workflow, stakeholders, and accountabilities. Better understanding of the components of the research ethics review will allow performance targets to be set, problems identified, and solutions developed, ultimately improving the process.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 114 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 16%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Lecturer 7 6%
Other 25 22%
Unknown 37 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 12 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 9%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Computer Science 9 8%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 25 22%
Unknown 44 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 May 2022.
All research outputs
#2,199,784
of 24,892,887 outputs
Outputs from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#91
of 129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,456
of 324,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,892,887 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 129 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 73.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,204 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.